Carl McCall Agrees That Pataki's Presidential Ambitions Are "a Joke"
Carl McCall's thoughts on 2008:
Tags:
news and politics, new york
"Hilary Clinton has the Democratic nomination sown up. The problem with having someone wrapping it up so early is that they tend to spend more time moving to the middle instead of holding onto all the Democratic votes. We got to have a candidate who has every possible Democratic vote. There is some uncertainty because we don't know who the Republican candidate will be." What about Giuliani? "Who knows." Pataki? "That's a joke. For this guy to think about being president - that's a joke."He wasn't quite as candid as AH yesterday, but pretty close.
Tags:
news and politics, new york
posted by Solomon Grundy @ 2:32 PM
17 Comments:
At 3:42 PM,
Antid Oto said…
Jesus I hope he's wrong. I don't think I can stand a Clinton-McCain race. The scary thing is that Carl McCall knows the inside of the Democratic Party, so when he says Hillary has it sown up you kind of have to listen.
At 5:17 PM,
Solomon Grundy said…
Yeah. He was talking to a couple of kids at Dartmouth, and somehow I doubt he expected his comments to ever get linked on Politicker, so he seems to have been unusually candid.
The nice thing about Hil/McCain is that it would probably spur a 3rd-party candidate on the right, finally fracturing the right's fucking juggernaut of a coalition.
Time to start sending Hil your resume...
At 5:22 PM,
Antid Oto said…
I don't see how that's very likely. McCain is doing a pretty good job of kissing the right asses these days, making the rounds from one right-wing interest group to another. The Dobsonites don't even hate him so much anymore. They won't back him in the primary, but they won't bolt the party either.
At 5:29 PM,
Solomon Grundy said…
Really? You think the legions of Christian soldiers are going to stand by and let their decades of hard work be coopted by a Mexican-loving, gay-tolerating centrist? At the very least Pat Buchanan will give it another pointless go. But maybe someone with a little more populist momentum.
Of course, I am just pulling this out of my ass. 2007 is a loooong way away.
As an aside, I believe it's "sewn up."
At 5:40 PM,
Antid Oto said…
Yeah, I was making a fairly stupid joke about the misspelling in the interview.
I don't think the legions of Christian soldiers think for themselves very much, and I think McCain may be able to buy off or sweet-talk a fair number of their leaders. He seems to be making decent progress at mending fences with the Republican establishment. The Mexican-loving could be a bigger problem, as the GOP obviously plans to bait that racism hard for 2006, meaning it will be hard to put a lid on that boil by 2007. Maybe Pat Buchanan would run again in that case, but again, I really doubt it, and I don't know what other third-party candidate would have the national standing to make a real impact.
The truth is, until the Republican party moved so hard to the right over the last five years, McCain was on the conservative side of an already very conservative party. Against Clinton I think he would easily keep the vast majority of the GOP, take 60% of independents, and cruise to victory. I think other potential Democratic nominees might be able to take him on, but not Clinton.
At 6:09 PM,
Solomon Grundy said…
Well, when I am synthesizing the analysis of DC pundits, for instance, I feel somewhat more confident than when I'm just saying what I think based on, er, my finger being on the pulse or whatever.
Why would Clinton have a harder time than other candidates? Because she's perceived as a liberal and would be the right wing's most effective get out the vote inspiration?
That's so irrational, since she's barely to the left of Lieberman. But yeah, I guess that's how the wingnuts feel.
Personally, I could get excited about Wellstone's bid.
At 6:12 PM,
Antid Oto said…
Personally, I could get excited about Wellstone's bid.
The only Democrat you can get excited for is dead? Ouch.
And yeah, that's exactly why Clinton would have a harder time than other candidates. She'll hold the GOP together for McCain, and he's very popular among independents so she's not going to make up the ground there. Frankly, her own party doesn't even like her that much. She might do better against other potential Republican nominees.
I could get excited about Feingold, Gore (in my dreams), or Edwards, mainly because they're the only three that seem to have anything to say.
At 6:56 PM,
Solomon Grundy said…
Oh whoops, I meant Feingold! Ha, that's funny, cuz in my imagination I've labelled Feingold the new Wellstone.
At 6:59 PM,
Solomon Grundy said…
Wait, Gore would be your dream candidate? Seriously? He's delivered some good speeches the past 5 years, but he sure choked in 2000.
My dream candidate would be Norm Siegel, or maybe Eleanor Roosevelt.
At 7:00 PM,
Solomon Grundy said…
Or Hugo Chavez. Heh.
At 7:03 PM,
Antid Oto said…
Yeah, I'm talking about Al Gore now, if he ran the way he's been talking the last few years. Yes, he choked in 2000. I'm hoping he'd know better than to listen to the same horrible consultants who twisted him up last time.
He's not really my dream candidate in a true sense, only in the sense that he's not really running. If I were going to pick someone dead it really might be Wellstone.
At 7:13 PM,
Solomon Grundy said…
Wellstone's a good choice. I'd happily join a Wellstone/Roosevelt campaign (I've got Eleanor on the brain cuz I watched her bio last night on PBS).
At 12:50 AM,
Antid Oto said…
Wait, I just figured out what's really going on here: Carl McCall is also a Left Behinds reader. Either that or it's that my post buried Pataki for good.
At 11:05 AM,
LL said…
Well, gentlemen, I'm gonna wade in here and tell you that Hillary is not loved by many because of her perceived level of self-centeredness, "let them eat cake" attitude, untrustworthiness, and all around shitty image outside of NY. Feingold is my Senator. He's the only Democrat I vote for consistently. But he is very middle of the road. You guys DO know that he was the only Dem Senator to vote for Clinton's impeachment right? I think he's too chicken to come right out and declare himself independent or libertarian, but deep down in that little black heart of his, he is.
At 12:56 PM,
Antid Oto said…
Hillary is not loved by many for the same reasons within New York.
At 1:10 PM,
Antid Oto said…
Also, I'm gratified to hear you say that about Feingold, because he's often portrayed in the media as some kind of far-left radical, instead of independent-minded and center-left, which is closer to the truth. The fact that you see me and SG so enthusiastic about him reflects the fact that many of us wish our representatives would stand up and fight for more of what the Democratic party claims to believe in: civil liberties, civil rights, privacy, and good government. This is also why Hillary's "moderate" stances (on flag-burning, video game violence, and so on) alienate many of us.
At 9:21 PM,
LL said…
I love Feingold. He has his moments though, and I fire off an email inquiry asking him to explain a vote or whatever and get a reply. It's his staff, but at least they don't ignore me, which is what a lot of Senators' staffs do. He's the closest to what I believe in civil liberty rights and smaller, less intrusive government. And he's not afraid to stick it to the Republicans when he needs to, but he doesn't make that his mission in life. He's a good Senator and I hope he stays in office representing me for a long time.
Post a Comment
<< Home